Clarion Housing Association Limited (202317700)

Background

1. The resident is the shared owner of a flat in a purpose–built low–rise block. He had previously reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) to the landlord, which already had a civil injunction in place against the alleged perpetrator at the time of the resident’s complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. We have found there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of ASB

6. The landlord identified several failings with its handling of the ASB investigation as part of its stage 2 response. It offered substantial compensation to the resident to remedy these. This was sufficient to put things right.

Complaint handling

7. There were delays during the complaint process which were acknowledged by the landlord.  The compensation offered for this was again appropriate.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not considered

8. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, the resident’s concerns about a potential data breach are better suited to investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

What we have considered

9. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it will investigate all incidents of ASB that meet its threshold, and that when the ASB that is reported is a crime it will work with the police. It makes it clear that the police will take the lead in a situation like this. Its investigation will begin within 5 working days of the threshold being met.
10. The policy does not otherwise give clear timescales or detailed explanations of the actions the landlord will take. However, it says it will follow a victim-centred approach, log all reports of ASB, and consider a range of interventions where necessary.
11. The landlord received the first report of ASB from the resident on 9 January 2023. This related to a theft of mail that was alleged to have taken place in May 2022, and subsequent threats and slander based on the information contained in the mail. At the time of this report, the landlord was informed that the matter had been investigated by the police.
12. The landlord began its investigation as soon as it was made aware of the resident’s concerns and contacted him the next day to discuss the matter. It also provided diary sheets to enable the resident to record any other incidents of ASB that occurred. This was in line with its policy.
13. At the same time an action plan was created by the landlord. It said it would:
    1. Liaise with the police.
    2. Make a referral to victim support.
    3. Contact the resident again on 24 January 2023.
14. The landlord identified in its stage 2 response that the resident had not agreed to this action plan. It offered £800 compensation for this.
15. Following this report, the landlord gathered information from other agencies and tried to contact the resident’s solicitors and other witnesses to the incidents. It did not contact all witnesses, and acknowledged this in its stage 2 response. It offered £800 compensation for this.
16. Following an internal process, and after taking additional advice from an external ASB consultant, the landlord decided to seek an extension to a civil injunction it had already obtained. The injunction had been obtained in April 2022 and had been due to last for 12 months. The landlord extended this twice, meaning it was in place until May 2025.
17. The resident explained to the landlord during its investigation that the resolution he wanted was for the perpetrator to be evicted or for the landlord to buy the resident’s share of the flat back from him.
18. The landlord acted in accordance with its own policy by liaising with the police, who had already investigated some elements of the ASB that had been reported. It tried to gain further information to allow it to fully investigate the distress and alarm that had been caused to the resident, but was unable to gather evidence to support this. This may be due to failings that the landlord identified during its complaint investigation.
19. The landlord acted within its policy and considered the interventions available to it when responding to the resident’s reports. It took appropriate advice and concluded it did not have sufficient evidence to support evicting the perpetrator, but instead extended the injunction it already had in place. This showed the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously.
20. The landlord identified that it did not communicate its action in relation to the extension clearly to the resident, who may not have been aware that it took this step. There is evidence in the resident’s contact with the landlord that he believed the injunction had been allowed to lapse, which shows this. The landlord identified this failing in its stage 2 complaint response and offered £800 compensation for this.
21. The landlord offered a total of £3,200 in its stage 2 response for the failings it identified in its handling of the ASB reported by the resident. This is in addition to the £50 it appropriately offered for communication issues at stage 1.
22. The resident was experiencing significant distress due to the ASB, and the landlord’s failures exacerbated this as the resident did not think the landlord was taking his concerns seriously. The resident was not confident that the landlord was appropriately investigating the concerns he had raised, and he was understandably worried about his own safety and that of his family.
23. While these failings did not stop the landlord from completing its investigation into the ASB, and while it took appropriate steps to resolve the ASB by securing an extension to the existing injunction, it did not take full consideration of the resident throughout the process.
24. The total payment of £3,250 offered by the landlord for these failings was substantial, and reflective of serious failures causing severe long-term impact under our remedies guidance. This shows that the landlord took seriously the impact of its failings on the resident. Considering the distress caused to the resident by the ASB, and that the landlord was taking appropriate steps to manage the ASB, its offer was reasonable in the circumstances.
25. Based on this, we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

26. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code. The landlord has 5 working days to acknowledge a complaint at each stage, and should provide a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
27. The landlord provided a response at stage 1 after 18 working days, which was outside of its policy. It apologised for this delay when it provided its stage 1 response to the complaint.
28. The stage 2 response was provided after 66 days. This is significantly outside the timeframe allowed under the landlord’s policy. The landlord did update the resident during the complaints process to explain that the investigation was taking longer than expected. It also provided a payment of £100 at stage 2 of its complaints process to reflect this.
29. While there were delays in providing the resident with a response at both stages of the complaints process, these were acknowledged and appropriate redress provided. As a result of this, we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Complaint handling

30. The landlord’s stage 2 response was detailed and provided a lot of information to the resident to explain the steps it had taken and the failures it had identified in its investigation. It also gave the resident detailed advice to help resolve the issues he had raised, including how to make a claim against its liability insurance and signposting it to the legal firm responsible for the data breach the resident was complaining about.
31. This was to the resident’s benefit, and showed that the landlord had a positive complaint handling culture and was actively seeking a good outcome for the resident.